G.R. No. L-31501, June 30, 1970
Datu Blah Sinsuat, petitioner, vs. Salipada K. Pendatun, Commission on Elections, and The Provincial Board of Canvassers of Cotabato, respondents.

FACTS

This is an election case involving the canvass for the office of Representative. The petitioner, Datu Blah Sinsuat, contested the use of certain election returns from various precincts in Cotabato. The issues centered on the application of the “statistical improbability” doctrine from the Lagumbay case to a single office (Congressman), the validity of returns with alleged “excess” votes, and the specific handling of returns from several precincts, particularly Precinct 15 of Pikit. For Precinct 15 of Pikit, there was a dispute over the Comelec copy of the return, which showed erasures and superimpositions altering the votes for respondent Pendatun from “250” to “700.” The Comelec had initially found this copy clean, but a later committee report detailed the alterations. Respondent Pendatun argued that the petitioner was in estoppel to challenge the copy since he had previously insisted on its use.

ISSUE

The primary issues resolved in this concurring and dissenting opinion are:
1. Whether the Lagumbay doctrine of statistical improbability applies to a single office within a manufactured return.
2. Whether the “excess” of votes in certain returns (Precincts 10, 16, 27, 31, and 33 of Pikit) was sufficient to warrant setting aside those returns.
3. Whether the matters referring to Precinct 54 of M’lang, 4-A of Maganoy, and 31 of Dinaig should be subject to further action by the Comelec.
4. Which copy of the return for Precinct 15 of Pikit should be used in the canvass and how the tampering thereon should be treated.

RULING

Justice Barredo, concurring in part and dissenting in part, ruled as follows:
1. The Lagumbay ruling applies to a single office. The doctrine of statistical improbability applies to a manufactured return as a whole, including votes for a single office. A manufactured return is prepared without regard to the actual ballots cast, and once its falsity is evident, the prima facie validity of the entire return ceases. There is no basis to give separate prima facie value to votes for one office within such a return.
2. The “excess” of votes in the specified Pikit precincts is not great enough to warrant setting aside the returns. The excess votes were minimal (e.g., one vote in Precinct 16) and likely due to errors in computation or recording, not palpable falsity. Following precedents like Alonto v. Comelec and Ilarde v. Comelec, these are grounds for correction, not complete nullification.
3. The matters referring to Precinct 54 of M’lang, 4-A of Maganoy, and 31 of Dinaig should be subject to further action by the Comelec. The Court affirmed the Comelec’s resolutions on these precincts. For Precinct 54 of M’lang, the Provincial Treasurer’s copy of the return should be used in the canvass.
4. The Comelec copy of the return for Precinct 15 of Pikit should be used, but with the original figure of “250” votes for Pendatun. Despite the petitioner’s initial insistence on using the Comelec copy, the physical evidence of tampering (erasures and superimpositions changing “250” to “700”) is decisive. The committee report clearly showed the original entry was “250.” Therefore, the legitimate vote for respondent Pendatun in this precinct is 250, not 700. The petitioner is not estopped because the tampering is evident on the face of the return.
Justice Barredo dissented from the majority’s disposition regarding other aspects of the case, advocating for a stricter approach to ensure all votes are counted and to advance the cause of honest elections.